Prince's Deployment Kept Secret By Media

Prominent Journalists Knew Of Prince Harry's Deployment To Afghanistan But Kept Silent

(AP)  News organizations are generally the worst places to keep a secret. But for months, news of British Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan was kept from the public even though many prominent journalists knew about it.

Several organizations - including The Associated Press - agreed to keep the news under wraps to protect the prince and his fellow soldiers until the informal embargo was broken Thursday by the Drudge Report Web site.

The news out, British authorities decided Friday that the man third in line to the British throne should be pulled from Afghanistan. He had been serving with an army unit in the country's southern Helmand province since mid-December, and had been expected to stay until April.

The deal with news organizations had been in the works since last summer, when Britain's Ministry of Defense approached prominent journalists. Bob Satchwell, head of the British trade group Society of Editors, was called upon to broker the deal.

"When it became quite clear that Harry was going to be sent to Afghanistan, the media didn't want to be responsible for putting him and especially soldiers around him at extra risk, which clearly they would be," Satchwell said. "It was as simple as that."

For their cooperation, the organizations got something in return. The Press Association and Sky TV prepared thorough pool reports with interviews, video and pictures of Harry and his comrades that would be available the moment news got out - access well beyond what they'd normally get.

CNN joined the agreement about a week before Harry's deployment when it was told about it by a British affiliate, said Tony Maddox, chief of CNN International. The New York Times was not briefed about Harry's whereabouts and did not agree to any embargo, a spokeswoman said.

The AP deemed it similar to situations where it does not report on troop movements or military tactics to avoid putting soldiers at risk, said John Daniszewski, managing editor for international news. When President Bush visited Baghdad, the AP also didn't report on the trip until he was safely on the ground.

"If the AP had gone out of its way to break the story that Prince Harry was over there, it would have had the effect of inserting us into the news," Daniszewski said.

Harry's story changed - his deployment was abruptly ended - when it became public knowledge.

Yet a prominent media ethicist, Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, said he's uncomfortable when news organizations promise to censor themselves at a government's request.

Harry didn't have to go to Afghanistan, he said. Few instances where news is held back for safety reasons last several months like this case. Steele asked: What if a reporter in Afghanistan discovered Harry independently? What if another soldier shot a picture of Harry on a cell phone and distributed it over the Internet? And who is to say that the Taliban or al Qaeda couldn't find Harry on their own?

"I find the logic of news organizations to be weak and self-serving," Steele said. "I don't think the decision to hold back meets any of the criteria that I would apply to those exceptional cases where a news organization backs off on a story."

Incredibly, the embargo held even though an Australian magazine reported Harry was in Afghanistan six weeks ago. New Idea, a celebrity and lifestyle publication whose cover story this week is about pregnant Australian celebrities, reported on its Web site in mid-January that Harry had joined his regiment in a covert mission and had already seen front-line action. Its source: "a friend."

New Idea's editor told Britain's Telegraph newspaper that she had no idea of any embargo.

Yet the story's existence attracted virtually no attention until The Drudge Report posted the news Thursday.

"I certainly didn't know about it," Satchwell said, "and I went to Google every day and put in `Prince Harry' and `Afghanistan."'

Drudge did not immediately return telephone and e-mail messages about his scoop. Since Drudge wrote that CNN had internal debates about reporting on Harry's military role, there was some speculation that the network leaked the news to him. But Maddox said it was "absolutely not in CNN's interest to leak the story to Drudge. We did not want the embargo to be broken."

It was also unusual that Harry's public absence had received little notice. Satchwell said the news organizations' agreement didn't extend to any of Harry's other activities or "late-night socializing." But his absence from nightclubs - or the royal family's holiday celebration - wasn't really noted.

For the sharply competitive British press, the pressure to hold back on a scoop must have been enormous. But a public backlash against an organization deemed responsible for breaking the embargo may have been worse.

The Sun newspaper wrote Friday that it was proud to play its part in the news blackout, and was disappointed Harry might have to return because "foreign media blew his cover."

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that an embargo many journalists figured wouldn't hold lasted as long as it did.

[creeper00]

Matt Drudge is a piece of slime. He further endangered the life of a man who was already at risk.

Ugly American.

[ispace-2009]

I wonder what else the media is hiding from us!

[ubrew12]

Certain members of the Royal family should not be classified as ''public citizens''. its as simple as that. Private citizens can sue if their whereabouts are leaked to the press. And no media outlet is in business to lose money.

[hypnotoad72]

Nice to see that smile again! Colgate, this time?

I was first thinking "Prince" - the singer guy who changed his name into a squiggle thing, thinking we''d all have a name for it... apart from "Dumb", that is...

But I''m still wondering; if his presence was genuine, or a media showpiece?

Cynicism aside; there are legit reasons why leaders'' family members should find better ways to serve their country than to go grin in the middle of a battlefield! The article even alludes to such!! The press furore, such information getting found more readily by enemy forces who sure as heck would relish the opportunity of capturing such a person...

[nothappyatall]

"Perhaps the biggest surprise is that an embargo many journalists figured wouldn''t hold lasted as long as it did."

Yeah, usually they use anonymous sources so they can get a story out and convict someone via media before they are even read their rights!

Scary part is, given THIS, what ELSE are the media holding back about things such as the Bush regime and Govt that we need to know about?

[tbweb]

You keep hearing the same story over and over again, famous people just wanting to be normal, live a normal life, which just goes to show you, fame and fortune may not be all its cracked up to be.

[sgtrds]

It was kept secret until ultra far right wing Drudge leaked it. Not surprising considering that the right wing has a habit of leaking otherwise secret or confidential information when it serves their own interests or ego.